If the writing was nasty and exposing specifics, sure, but it very much is not.
Journalists and other outside observers can and should write about corporate incompetence wherever they find it. When you're in a paid position of trust, though, talking about your client's failings is tacky.
I agree that the writing isn't nasty. The specificity is the key. I guess to some people this came across as sufficiently anonymized. To me, it seems like anybody working at this place knows that the auther is talking about their company, which is a problem in and of itself. But it also means we're just one equally-indiscreet reply away from knowing exactly who this is (something like "yeah, I work here and..."). Though I really don't think that even that much additional info is necessary to deanonymize this. Just a hunch; obviously you disagree.
Do you actually truly believe this?
What I do think happened is that they saw how much pain it would cause people, then they looked at some fucking dollar amount and some spreadsheet and said "that's fine". I think that's fucked up.